Exactly. Frostbite 2 can do 60fps on consoles. All it takes is optimizing it to do so. The console versions of BF3 are just optimized ports of a very powerful PC engine to begin with. Same can be said for Cryengine 3. Any engine can run at 60fps on consoles.

Exactly. Frostbite 2 can do 60fps on consoles. All it takes is optimizing it to do so. The console versions of BF3 are just optimized ports of a very powerful PC engine to begin with. Same can be said for Cryengine 3. Any engine can run at 60fps on consoles.

Not these consoles...no way in hell...you would have to strip the engine down to its absolute bare bones and the game would look quite bad...worse than MW for sure...the two engines approach things very differently...

This is one of the points people have been trying to get through to you...The IW 5.0 engine is DESIGNED to run @ 60fps on current Gen console hardware...and because of that sacrifices needed ( and still need) to be made in terms of overall graphics presentation...

Exactly. Frostbite 2 can do 60fps on consoles. All it takes is optimizing it to do so. The console versions of BF3 are just optimized ports of a very powerful PC engine to begin with. Same can be said for Cryengine 3. Any engine can run at 60fps on consoles.

Sure, it can run at 60fps; however, you already admitted you'd have to take out everything that makes BF3, well, BF3 lol. You'll have a game that runs at 60fps, and looks like MW3... GASP!!!

Originally Posted by Metfanant

Not these consoles...no way in hell...you would have to strip the engine down to its absolute bare bones and the game would look quite bad...worse than MW for sure...the two engines approach things very differently...

This is one of the points people have been trying to get through to you...The IW 5.0 engine is DESIGNED to run @ 60fps on current Gen console hardware...and because of that sacrifices needed ( and still need) to be made in terms of overall graphics presentation...

Not these consoles...no way in hell...you would have to strip the engine down to its absolute bare bones and the game would look quite bad...worse than MW for sure...the two engines approach things very differently...

This is one of the points people have been trying to get through to you...The IW 5.0 engine is DESIGNED to run @ 60fps on current Gen console hardware...and because of that sacrifices needed ( and still need) to be made in terms of overall graphics presentation...

The console versions of BF3 are stripped down versions of a powerful engine incapable of running on consoles and yet it looks great. How can a Frostbite 2 game running at 60fps look worse than Call of Duty, a game than runs at 60fps. Call of Duty is not the best looking 60fps game so there is no reason why you should think it would be so difficult. You act as if Call of Duty's graphics are impossible of anyone else to achieve.

But if you don't mind explaining yourself, how are Battlefield 3's textures more demanding than Call of Duty's?

The textures in MW3 aren't as high a resolution as the textures in BF3 for starters...

I think you're misunderstanding the basic principles of a game engine. The engine runs perfectly fine on consoles. Which Frostbite 2.0 game runes at 60fps on consoles?

The question was to ask what prevents BF3 textures from being used in place in Call of Duty's. So aside from obviously texture resolution, what is more demanding about BF3 textures vs Call of Duty?

BF3 runs perfectly fine on consoles bcuz it was optimized to do so. Saying that DICE can't make a good looking 60fps console bcuz it already runs at 30fps on consoles is the same as saying DICE can't make a good looking 30fps game on consoles bcuz it is already too demanding on PC. BF3 will obviously have more of a 60fps look to it, but is to stop them from surpassing Call of Duty in both artistic and technical fidelity?

What is your contention now? I mean, what point are you trying to drive home here? Everything else has already been explained or proven contrary to your stance on the subject. So what is it now?
MW3 - 60fps
BF3 - 30fps

Um, no I didn't ever say nor hint at that. The engine is scalable for different platforms. There are obvious concessions that have to be made though, hence the 30fps limit and the resolution being technically sub hd 1280 x 704.

Um, no I didn't ever say nor hint at that. The engine is scalable for different platforms. There are obvious concessions that have to be made though, hence the 30fps limit and the resolution being technically sub hd 1280 x 704.

Technically, you did.

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Saying that DICE can't make a good looking 60fps console bcuz it already runs at 30fps on consoles is the same as saying DICE can't make a good looking 30fps game on consoles bcuz it is already too demanding on PC

Any engine can be scaled down to whatever hardware they want it to run on. Any game can be scaled down from running @ 30fps to 60fps. What has you so convinced that Call of Dury cannot have its graphics surpassed by another 60fps game?

Of course the game could be scaled back visually to run at 60fps. Whats your point?

Technically, you did. If a game running on demanding PC hardware can be scaled back to run and look great on consoles, then a game can be scaled back from 30fps to 60fps and look great. If one of those isn't true, then they are both false.

And you already know my point:

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Any engine can be scaled down to whatever hardware they want it to run on. Any game can be scaled down from running @ 30fps to 60fps. What has you so convinced that Call of Dury cannot have its graphics surpassed by another 60fps game?

No, actually, it isn't. When I'm talking about the game on consoles, we're talking about the concessions and hits the game would have to take to achieve 60fps. When you're talking about the PC, and how it achieves the same fps, it doesn't have those scale backs because the engine is capable of producing better results due to the more powerful hardware.

No, actually, it isn't. When I'm talking about the game on consoles, we're talking about the concessions and hits the game would have to take to achieve 60fps. When you're talking about the PC, and how it achieves the same fps, it doesn't have those scale backs because the engine is capable of producing better results due to the more powerful hardware.

Anything else I can clarify for you before I get some sleep?

Actually, I think you may be right. The difference between the PC version of BF3 and the console version is about 12-16x times the power. The difference between 30fps and 60fps on consoles is only about 2-3x power difference.

MW3 can't have better graphics due to it running at 60FPS if they try to upgrade the visuals too much they will sacrifice the frame rate and the frame rate is probably the most important thing about the COD franchise. They can do small incremental updates to the engine but there is only so much they can get out of the consoles.

BF3 runs at 30FPS because they went for scale and tried to make it pretty, when you (inzane)say it's a heavily modified version of the PC game it is, it's all the settings turned on low with the resolution dropped under 720p. There is no way in hell that they could get BF3 running on the PS3/360 at 60FPS, not going to happen. At. All. Again, there is only so much you can get out of the current gen hardware.

DICE went for size and visuals. IW has gone for framerate and reduced visuals.

What about that is so confusing?

What FB2.0 games are running at 60FPS? i'd like to see some of those because as far as i'm aware CoD is the only FPS, retail, franchise hitting 60fps

MW3 can't have better graphics due to it running at 60FPS if they try to upgrade the visuals too much they will sacrifice the frame rate and the frame rate is probably the most important thing about the COD franchise. They can do small incremental updates to the engine but there is only so much they can get out of the consoles.

BF3 runs at 30FPS because they went for scale and tried to make it pretty, when you (inzane)say it's a heavily modified version of the PC game it is, it's all the settings turned on low with the resolution dropped under 720p. There is no way in hell that they could get BF3 running on the PS3/360 at 60FPS, not going to happen. At. All. Again, there is only so much you can get out of the current gen hardware.

DICE went for size and visuals. IW has gone for framerate and reduced visuals.

What about that is so confusing?

The engine was both reworked and toned down to run on consoles as was Crysis 2. All three versions of the game have been coded uniquely to run efficiently on their respective platforms. Reworking the game for 60fps on consoles will obviously lose a little bit of quality as did the console version to the PC, but it will remain the same nonetheless and look better than Call of Duty. Not only that, but I enjoy Battlefield 3's unique visual style. Call of Duty's general visual presentation has been largely untouched on the other hand and it is not horsepower that is hold that back.

A little bit? It would loose alot more detail than just a little bit. I'm 100% sure that if DICE thought they could match the framerate found in the CoD games they would've. Tell you what, find me a nicer looking game than CoD that runs at 60FPS and is a retail game... I'll wait.

Of course what you find pretty and what i find pretty is subjective as they are both separate art styles.

DICE would not have bothered with 60fps as 95% of devs have not for the sole reason that they want to make it as pretty as possible. It has little to do with whether it can be done at 60fps. Honestly tho, 30fps was only really needed so they could keep the game looking as close to the PC version as possible. That special real-time GI of theirs is only possible with 30fps. But if you take out the GI, rework the shadow rendering and various other effects, lower the draw distance, and lower the resolution; you still have a great looking game.

As far as a comparable title to Call of Duty, Rage is definitely on the same level as MW3, and I believe the game runs at 720p. I might be mistaken tho. Either way, I am simply more fond of BF3 visual style (personal taste), but contrary to what people have been saying, a 60fps console game can capture BF3's unique and beautiful visual style and not be technically inferior to CoD.

Call of Duty's visuals have just been too much the same for me. It would be nice if they made better incremental increases to the visuals and colors like what Assassin's Creed has done.

Omg...i go to sleep for a few hours and this happens!?...this might take awhile on my phone lolol

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

The console versions of BF3 are stripped down versions of a powerful engine incapable of running on consoles and yet it looks great. How can a Frostbite 2 game running at 60fps look worse than Call of Duty, a game than runs at 60fps.

Because you have no concept of how game engines function...each engine approaches things differently, has their own strengths and weaknesses. You can't simply swap things in and out and "scale back" at will...for instance...you can't swap out lighting solutions because it might be tied closely to your rendering solution...

The reason q FB2.0 game running at 60fps might look worse than CoD is because the two engines are so different that to scale the detail back enough in FB 2.0 to allow consoles to run at 60fps you would probably have to go lower detail than CoD games...the IW engine is very streamlined and designed with 60fps on consoles in mind...FB 2.0 is not...they don't use the same lighting solutions, or rendering solutions, or texture streaming...you're try in to make this an apples to apples comparison when its apples to oranges at best...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Call of Duty is not the best looking 60fps game so there is no reason why you should think it would be so difficult. You act as if Call of Duty's graphics are impossible of anyone else to achieve.

Show me a full scale retail FPS with better graphics than MW3 running at a solid 60fps...

And no, nobody has ever said CoD graphics cannot be passed...certainly they can...but if it was as easy as you think...why has nobody done it?

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

But if you don't mind explaining yourself, how are Battlefield 3's textures more demanding than Call of Duty's?

texture resolution?

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

The question was to ask what prevents BF3 textures from being used in place in Call of Duty's. So aside from obviously texture resolution, what is more demanding about BF3 textures vs Call of Duty?

THE RESOLUTION IS MORE DEMANDING holy crap dude! The resolution is the most demanding aspect of textures...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

BF3 runs perfectly fine on consoles bcuz it was optimized to do so. Saying that DICE can't make a good looking 60fps console bcuz it already runs at 30fps on consoles is the same as saying DICE can't make a good looking 30fps game on consoles bcuz it is already too demanding on PC.

No not at all...Nobody is saying DICE can't make a good looking 60fps game on consoles...but their engine is not designed to do it and therefore would need to be HEAVILY modified to do it...or they could scale back the detail enough so that the game looked like crap and it would run at 60fps...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

BF3 will obviously have more of a 60fps look to it, but is to stop them from surpassing Call of Duty in both artistic and technical fidelity?

huh? 60fps feel?! What!?

Also, lets put an end to this "artistic fidelity" crap...no such thing...can't be measured...irrelevant topic...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

So basically you are saying bcuz Frostbite 2 runs on demanding PC hardware, it cannot run and look great on consoles. That obviously makes sense considering they never did that.

WHAT!?

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Whether you believe it or not, Call of Duty's graphics can be surpassed by other 60fps games, both artistic and technical. Call of Duty is not the best looking game.

Nobody has ever said CoD is the best looking game...but for 60fps shooters...its damn gorgeous...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Technically, you did.

non he didnt

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Any engine can be scaled down to whatever hardware they want it to run on.

sorta...but some engines (PS3 exclusives) are designed with very specific hardware in mind...and simply "scaling them back" would do you no good...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Any game can be scaled down from running @ 30fps to 60fps.

in theory yes...but each engine is so different that its impossible to say where and how much you would need to scale back to get there...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

What has you so convinced that Call of Dury cannot have its graphics surpassed by another 60fps game?

again, nobody said this at all...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Technically, you did. If a game running on demanding PC hardware can be scaled back to run and look great on consoles, then a game can be scaled back from 30fps to 60fps and look great. If one of those isn't true, then they are both false.

. You failed logic in math freshman year of HS didn't you?

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Actually, I think you may be right. The difference between the PC version of BF3 and the console version is about 12-16x times the power. The difference between 30fps and 60fps on consoles is only about 2-3x power difference.

as if we didn't already know you had no idea what you were talking about you just proved it right there...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

The engine was both reworked and toned down to run on consoles as was Crysis 2. All three versions of the game have been coded uniquely to run efficiently on their respective platforms. Reworking the game for 60fps on consoles will obviously lose a little bit of quality as did the console version to the PC, but it will remain the same nonetheless and look better than Call of Duty.

omg dude, you're so lost...

Originally Posted by Inzane2050

Not only that, but I enjoy Battlefield 3's unique visual style. Call of Duty's general visual presentation has been largely untouched on the other hand and it is not horsepower that is hold that back.

and like I've said before...visual styling is subjective...has nothing to do with a games engine...and can't really be argued...its a personal preference...

_____________
I mean lets be honest here...you've just got to stop this argument...its fun proving you wrong to an extent...but you're really just making yourself look foolish...you have no legs to stand on here...and your arguments hold no water...just give it up man...

BF3's texture resolution is not relevant to whether or not they can be used for CoD. The artistic fidelity is just as important to graphics as anything else regardless if it is subjective. Most people would agree that Castlevania looks better than Blue Dragon even tho Blue Dragon has higher technical fidelity. Or that the colors are improved in AC Brotherhood. And contrary to what you have indeed said, a 60fps console game can capture BF3's unique and beautiful visual style and not be technically inferior to CoD. And Rage, as already stated, is on level with Call of Duty MW3.

And again, stop with the petty insults. You don't make yourself look good when you resort to such a childish act. Argue this nonsense with someone else if you can't be respectful. Adios.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.